Jerry Glover
Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon
Peter Thorne
Carlo Azzarri
Bernard Vanlauwe
Siboniso Moyo
Asamoah Larbi
Kindu Mekonnen
Salvador Fernandez
Peter Ballantyne
Sara Signorelli
Beliyou Haile
Cleo Roberts
1. Draft an AR phase II program concept and outline note with purpose, outcomes, activities, hypotheses geo focus; plus initial 'delivery' framework
2. Take stock of current project and program strengths, weaknesses and external review comments to feed into objective 1
3. Interact with and Influence USAID and other influentials in Washington about 1) AR results and promise and 2) importance of SI
4. Briefly, discuss issues and plans on the immediate/18 month phase I agenda
5. Agree scope organizational lead for the science symposium in October
Agenda
Tuesday
0800
Breakfast at IFPRI
0830
Session 1: Objectives and outputs and outcomes of the week
Strengths
systems perspective - multiple components, trade-offs, partnerships
Flexibility - to address important demand-led R4D issues [no pre-set R4D agenda]. 'Flexibility within borders'
Partnerships - extent, breadth, depth
System research rater than single commodity
Multi-disciplinary approaches looking at realities on the ground
multi-stakeholder - different CG centres working together to facilitate change and impact
partnership centred on farmers
Weaknesses
Insufficient / patchy attention to higher-level FtF outcomes and indicators [gender, nutrition, etc]
Insufficient interactions on science issues
integration challenges
scaling issues
clarity of research methodology, hypotheses, analysis
No close consistency and defined boundaries
Lack of practical document to complement the general research framework
Old wine in new bottles? we need to avoid CG centres going own way, focusing on too many research activities
difficulties in integrating AR projects
Opportunities
Emerging partnerships in development - more attention to AR from missions, donors, national development partners
More conducive policy environment for SI and similar
Increased attention of R&D partners to engage with AR
Increased interest from R partners and donors for systems expertise
Working across different agro-ecologies
using integrated systems as a basis for development planning
Threats
management complexity overwhelms us [lack of defined borders, complex partnerships, lack of harmonisation]
insecure long-term funding [need to articulate and illustrate results and impacts]
losing systems experience in the teams [need to mentor and grow perspectives]
inability to demonstrate tangible change at livelihood level through systems R4D
not partnering with competing SI projects leads to missed opportunities
challenges dealing with national partners lead to under-performance
risk of CG centres falling back into old ways leading to under-performance
tension between specific interventions and generalizable results
Arising from the SWOT: Priority actions for the coming 14 months (rest of phase 1)
a. Explain and document and capitalize on our system-level perspectives
a. Define AR identity and unique selling points - roles, beneficiaries, value added ...
b. Document and contextualize impact/adoption through data
c. Recruit AR coordinator/administrator at program level
b. Explain/document R&D impact and institutional impact
d. Strengthen national partners
c. M&E data staffing/people into each regional project
e. Boosting cross-project science learning
f. Data management: farm/farmer data; queryable database of AR farmers
b. Documenting early change
g. Identify and document technology packages (link to farmer typologies)
b. Carry out socioeconomic analysis ad risks
h. Revise program framework - hypotheses
i. Develop and use system-wide SI indicators
j. Clarify IPs roles, objectives and approach
k. Agree, test, validate approach to typologies; start to operationalize this
Arising from the SWOT: points captured by PeterB
The system perspective and associated integration is central
We need a system to store and analyze data on individual farmers (barcodes)
We miss some standard design/implementation device and indicators that bridges the program framework and associated hypotheses with project implementation
We need to capture tangible evidence on outcomes, many small changes
Demand orientation (within some borders) is a strong point of the program
We need to document and explain and clarify 'the' systems approach we use
Researching scaling is important alongside actual scaling
Grasping opportunities needs us to proactively approach partners
Greater scientific interactions are needed
The demand orientation is interlinked with program flexibility
Complexity management is required
We need the 'systems perspective' to be taken up and adopted within the science team
It's important to generate evidence around the FtF indicators
Cross-cgiar collaboration and engagement is a strength
Collaboration with partners close to the ground is a strength
Cross-project collaboration can provide agro-ecological insights
Phase 2: what to do more of; less of
Do more ...
1. more evidence to inform actions for target typologies of farmers [extend what we do now]
2. more publications and articles
3. stocktake all the data and feed into decisionmaking / farmer communities
4. Pay more attention to the enabling environment and how this affects/influences/determines SI; Decide what actions AR can do in this area
5. Link work on plots / households with work on landscapes
6. Refine the SI indicators we use
7. do more research on scaling up
8. Have more coordinated planning
9. Do more monitoring of adoption changes
10. specify clearer roles and responsibilities of AR actors
11. more data sharing across levels
12. More differentiated approach to data - for different levels and scales
13. capacity development on data for national partners
14. do research on delivery systems [linked to more scaling up research]
Do less ...
1. collect less data, less often; but better (thru better and more coordinated planning)
2. caution to avoid institutionalization of IPs
What's different in this?
1. Move 'beyond agronomy' towards combinations of options and interventions in 'packages' ?
2. More research on interactions among interventions
3. Have innovations 'ready to adapt' by farmers, under ranges of conditions
4. Partner with extension so our technologies in their packages
5. More 'marketing' of interventions focus
Emerging vision of success
This very preliminary material was produced by the groups as a starting point for visioning and strategizing.
Brief ‘presentations’ of key conclusions and recommendations of the reviews Quick SWOT among us
1030
Break
1100
Session 3: Stocktaking review implications - Program framework - Hypotheses - Harmonization - Data management - M&E - Organization and management
Critical implications of session 2 Listing, ranking, prioritization
1230
Lunch
1400
Session 4: AR program rapid re-think
Re-visit the principal elements of the program architecture What to keep What to tweak What to change
1530
Break
1600
Session 5: AR theories of change and impact pathways
Exercise to document current -> projected impact pathways Vision of Success Outcomes Outputs Activities Looking to Phase II
1730
END Day 1
Wednesday
0830
Session 6: Sustainable Intensification
Still valid? Indicators? Revisions?
1000
Break
1030
Session 7: Phase II design first cut
Building from Session 5 Focus on ‘Science’/R4D Key elements
1230
Lunch
1400
Session 8: Phase II design outline
Phase II rough ‘design note’ WHAT will we do ‘Science’/R4D
1530
Break
1600
Session 9: Prep for USAID visits
Day 3 program Preparations Process
1730
END Day 2
Thursday
0830
Session 9: Prep for USAID visits
1000
USAID program
Assume Jerry puts this together Mini-seminar/presentation about AR, with USAID influentials? Show and tell Individual visits/discussions Maybe agrilinks webinar/lunchtime thing with wider than USAID? (online etc) on SI
1630
Session 10: Feedback USAID program
What did we learn Key insights Key implications for our planning and strategizing
1730
END Day 3
Friday
0830
Process and products for the day
0900
Session 11: Working on Phase II
Start from Session 8 HOW will we deliver Roles, pathways,
1230
Lunch
1400
AR phase 1 ‘housekeeping’ and planning - Big milestones - Big issues / Opportunities - Budgets - Preparing for the External Evaluation - Data sharing - Program-level activities, 18 month calendar - AOB
Date : 2-5 June 2015
Venue: IFPRI, Washington DC
Table of Contents
Participants
Jerry GloverIrmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon
Peter Thorne
Carlo Azzarri
Bernard Vanlauwe
Siboniso Moyo
Asamoah Larbi
Kindu Mekonnen
Salvador Fernandez
Peter Ballantyne
Sara Signorelli
Beliyou Haile
Cleo Roberts
Notes from the meeting
Objectives
1. Draft an AR phase II program concept and outline note with purpose, outcomes, activities, hypotheses geo focus; plus initial 'delivery' framework
2. Take stock of current project and program strengths, weaknesses and external review comments to feed into objective 1
3. Interact with and Influence USAID and other influentials in Washington about 1) AR results and promise and 2) importance of SI
4. Briefly, discuss issues and plans on the immediate/18 month phase I agenda
5. Agree scope organizational lead for the science symposium in October
Agenda
- Insights from external reviews
- SWOT exercise
Quick SWOT among us
What to keep
What to tweak
What to change
- Program framework:
still to do:
Listing, ranking, prioritization
Vision of Success / purpose
Outcomes
Outputs
Activities
Looking to Phase II
Indicators?
Revisions?
Focus on ‘Science’/R4D
Key elements
WHAT will we do ‘Science’/R4D
Preparations
Process
1300-1500 - informal discussions with Economic Growth, Education and Environment Bureau, Africa Bureau and Bureau for Food Security
PRESENTATION AT USAID
Key insights
Key implications for our planning and strategizing
HOW will we deliver
Roles, pathways,
SWOT exercise results
Strengths
systems perspective - multiple components, trade-offs, partnerships
Flexibility - to address important demand-led R4D issues [no pre-set R4D agenda]. 'Flexibility within borders'
Partnerships - extent, breadth, depth
System research rater than single commodity
Multi-disciplinary approaches looking at realities on the ground
multi-stakeholder - different CG centres working together to facilitate change and impact
partnership centred on farmers
Weaknesses
Insufficient / patchy attention to higher-level FtF outcomes and indicators [gender, nutrition, etc]
Insufficient interactions on science issues
integration challenges
scaling issues
clarity of research methodology, hypotheses, analysis
No close consistency and defined boundaries
Lack of practical document to complement the general research framework
Old wine in new bottles? we need to avoid CG centres going own way, focusing on too many research activities
difficulties in integrating AR projects
Opportunities
Emerging partnerships in development - more attention to AR from missions, donors, national development partners
More conducive policy environment for SI and similar
Increased attention of R&D partners to engage with AR
Increased interest from R partners and donors for systems expertise
Working across different agro-ecologies
using integrated systems as a basis for development planning
Threats
management complexity overwhelms us [lack of defined borders, complex partnerships, lack of harmonisation]
insecure long-term funding [need to articulate and illustrate results and impacts]
losing systems experience in the teams [need to mentor and grow perspectives]
inability to demonstrate tangible change at livelihood level through systems R4D
not partnering with competing SI projects leads to missed opportunities
challenges dealing with national partners lead to under-performance
risk of CG centres falling back into old ways leading to under-performance
tension between specific interventions and generalizable results
Arising from the SWOT: Priority actions for the coming 14 months (rest of phase 1)
a. Explain and document and capitalize on our system-level perspectives
a. Define AR identity and unique selling points - roles, beneficiaries, value added ...
b. Document and contextualize impact/adoption through data
c. Recruit AR coordinator/administrator at program level
b. Explain/document R&D impact and institutional impact
d. Strengthen national partners
c. M&E data staffing/people into each regional project
e. Boosting cross-project science learning
f. Data management: farm/farmer data; queryable database of AR farmers
b. Documenting early change
g. Identify and document technology packages (link to farmer typologies)
b. Carry out socioeconomic analysis ad risks
h. Revise program framework - hypotheses
i. Develop and use system-wide SI indicators
j. Clarify IPs roles, objectives and approach
k. Agree, test, validate approach to typologies; start to operationalize this
Arising from the SWOT: points captured by PeterB
The system perspective and associated integration is central
We need a system to store and analyze data on individual farmers (barcodes)
We miss some standard design/implementation device and indicators that bridges the program framework and associated hypotheses with project implementation
We need to capture tangible evidence on outcomes, many small changes
Demand orientation (within some borders) is a strong point of the program
We need to document and explain and clarify 'the' systems approach we use
Researching scaling is important alongside actual scaling
Grasping opportunities needs us to proactively approach partners
Greater scientific interactions are needed
The demand orientation is interlinked with program flexibility
Complexity management is required
We need the 'systems perspective' to be taken up and adopted within the science team
It's important to generate evidence around the FtF indicators
Cross-cgiar collaboration and engagement is a strength
Collaboration with partners close to the ground is a strength
Cross-project collaboration can provide agro-ecological insights
Phase 2: what to do more of; less of
Do more ...
1. more evidence to inform actions for target typologies of farmers [extend what we do now]
2. more publications and articles
3. stocktake all the data and feed into decisionmaking / farmer communities
4. Pay more attention to the enabling environment and how this affects/influences/determines SI; Decide what actions AR can do in this area
5. Link work on plots / households with work on landscapes
6. Refine the SI indicators we use
7. do more research on scaling up
8. Have more coordinated planning
9. Do more monitoring of adoption changes
10. specify clearer roles and responsibilities of AR actors
11. more data sharing across levels
12. More differentiated approach to data - for different levels and scales
13. capacity development on data for national partners
14. do research on delivery systems [linked to more scaling up research]
Do less ...
1. collect less data, less often; but better (thru better and more coordinated planning)
2. caution to avoid institutionalization of IPs
What's different in this?
1. Move 'beyond agronomy' towards combinations of options and interventions in 'packages' ?
2. More research on interactions among interventions
3. Have innovations 'ready to adapt' by farmers, under ranges of conditions
4. Partner with extension so our technologies in their packages
5. More 'marketing' of interventions focus
Emerging vision of success
This very preliminary material was produced by the groups as a starting point for visioning and strategizing.Emerging structure for phase 2
Phase 1 planning
This Gantt chart gives information on what was agreed as priority tasks for the coming periodSee also plans for the Africa RISING Program Strategy Workshop in October 2015
Also notes from PCT8 meeting on 5 June 2015
- Insights from external reviews
- SWOT exercise
Quick SWOT among us
- Program framework
- Hypotheses
- Harmonization
- Data management
- M&E
- Organization and management
Listing, ranking, prioritization
What to keep
What to tweak
What to change
Vision of Success
Outcomes
Outputs
Activities
Looking to Phase II
Indicators?
Revisions?
Focus on ‘Science’/R4D
Key elements
WHAT will we do ‘Science’/R4D
Preparations
Process
Mini-seminar/presentation about AR, with USAID influentials? Show and tell
Individual visits/discussions
Maybe agrilinks webinar/lunchtime thing with wider than USAID? (online etc) on SI
Key insights
Key implications for our planning and strategizing
HOW will we deliver
Roles, pathways,
- Big milestones
- Big issues / Opportunities
- Budgets
- Preparing for the External Evaluation
- Data sharing
- Program-level activities, 18 month calendar
- AOB